PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 1, 2004The Quarterly Journal of Economics10,810 citationsOpen Access

How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?

View Full Paper
BMBertrand MoineEDEsther DufloSMSendhil Mullainathan

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate the trustworthiness of Differences-in-Differences estimates and their standard errors.
  • Randomly generate placebo laws in state-level data on female wages.
  • Use OLS to compute Differences-in-Differences estimates and standard errors.
  • Conduct Monte Carlo simulations to analyze the performance of various econometric corrections.
  • Conventional Differences-in-Differences standard errors understate the true variability of estimators.
  • 5% significance found for 45% of placebo interventions.
  • Bootstrap methods perform well when the number of states is sufficiently large.

Abstract

Most papers that employ Differences-in-Differences estimation (DD) use many years of data and focus on serially correlated outcomes but ignore that the resulting standard errors are inconsistent. To illustrate the severity of this issue, we randomly generate placebo laws in state-level data on female wages from the Current Population Survey. For each law, we use OLS to compute the DD estimate of its “effect” as well as the standard error of this estimate. These conventional DD standard errors severely understate the standard deviation of the estimators: we find an “effect” significant at the 5 percent level for up to 45 percent of the placebo interventions. We use Monte Carlo simulations to investi-gate how well existing methods help solve this problem. Econometric corrections that place a specific parametric form on the time-series process do not perform well. Bootstrap (taking into account the autocorrelation of the data) works well when the number of states is large enough. Two corrections based on asymptotic approximation of the variance-covariance matrix work well for moderate numbers of states and one correction that collapses the time series information into a “pre”-and “post”-period and explicitly takes into account the effective sample size works well even for small numbers of states.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Moine et al. (2004) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d73cdbb4cef8fedc48f473https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1How many is enough? Sample Size in Staggered Difference-in-Differences Designs2024 · 8 citations
  2. 2Advances in difference-in-differences methods for policy evaluation research2024 · 107 citations
  3. 3Matched difference-in-differences estimators: a comparative simulation study2026
  4. 4Understanding Difference-in-differences methods to evaluate policy effects with staggered adoption: an application to Medicaid and HIV2024
  5. 5Vis Inertiae and Statistical Inference: A Review of Difference-in-Differences Methods Employed in Economics and Other Subjects2025 · 1 citations